Showing some skin

[Korihor]

This is a sincere question, although I doubt it will be answered.

Generally speaking, why do females show more skin than males?

Recently, I saw another article on the interwebs about a high school prom dress code. It was very simply for guys - suit or tux, tie and slacks.
The girls had a 20 pg list and pictures of do's and don'ts.
Especially as a TBM, I would always hear women complain they can't find anything appropiate (ie covers garments). At the gym, a standard womens shirt is a tank top and a mens is a t-shirt. When sisters go exmo - the love showing some skin/shoulders, cleavage and shorter skirts.

Guys get normal shorts that are a bit shorter.

I'm not complaining, I just don't understand. It just seems like this giant double standard that exists in society, not just LDS circles.

To me, it feels like this incessant story of "just because I wear revealing clothes doesn't mean rape me" and I agree with that. Yet, when you're wearing a low cut shirt, I can't help but notice. However, It seems I'm made to feel judged for looking.

I think anyone should be able to dress as they choose. But, they will inevitably bring attention, whether desirable or not. But there seems to be too many double standards and I'm trying to reformulate my worldviews.
I think women should be able to go topless like a guy if they want to. At the same time, I'm not looking at a shirtless dude like I am a shirtless chick.

I doubt any of this is making sense, and I'm sure this will open a can of worms, but society just seems so screwed up. People freak out at certain dresses at a prom but don't think twice about wearing swimsuit that covers less than underwear. Men's formal fashion is how much clothing they can wear and womens formal wear is how little they can get away with. I just don't get it.

[Palerider]

Having had numerous occasions to converse with females regarding just this subject (because of my profession, which shall remain unknown), I think I have some insight to your question.

Men compete against other men in areas of sports, financial success and also for particular women. The way they dress has something to do with that competition. Dress for success, etc. And sometimes wearing pants that fit a little too snugly can be used to catch a woman's eye but from my experience it seems men seldom do that sort of thing purposely. It's more about finding comfortable clothing that suits the occasion. Looking professional on the job or looking good in casual, say at the beach. But men don't necessarily do it to compete with other men on that level.

And there's the catch. Women are acutely aware of the competition from other women, for the attentions of men. Much more so than men are between one another for the attentions of women. So not only will women tend to dress skimpier than the girl next to them but they will also have their hair color changed, rhinoplasty, breasts enlarged, their hips lypo-suctioned, and on and on. All to compete with other women. Pretty sad..........

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying men don't compete with other men for women. I remember numerous fist fights in high school to settle just this question of territorialism. But they go about it differently than do women.

However, I have seen in recent years that young women and girls are settling their differences in similar ways to those of men and boys in the old days. Nothing like a good cat fight to make one see how far we've come....

Anyway, right or wrong, that's the scenario I have garnered from talking with women about this subject. Women dress to display their feminine attributes and to compete with other women. Maybe some of the ladies here could tell me if I'm on the wrong track here?

[2bizE]

I agree with Palerider. Something else to mention is how and what we dress is very social and environmental. If you watch documentaries on some of the Amazon tribes with little contact from the rest of humans, they dress much differently. Neither men nor women wear clothing above the waste. Some don't wear it below either? Do they have social pressures to compete for a mate? Surely they do. Since it is hot as hell, they also do not wear much clothes for practical reasons. The men make long gourds to cover their penis. That way they can make themselves look longer, a sure sign for attracting a female. These cultures compete for mates, but it seems in a less influenced way. More natural.
Which leads me to wonder what in these Amazon cultures cause the men to be sexually attracted. Probably not the breasts. Maybe it is body piercings or body markings. Not sure. But there is something as men are generally attracted to females and some qualities are more helpful in helping choose a mate.
Essentially, humans are animals and we have innate desires to mate, and in our culture, a little skin helps women to attract men, providing more opportunities to reproduce.

[alas]

It isn't just that men compete with men through sports, job, money, power, flashy car, and looks and women compete with other women with looks. It is that women select men on all those various traits while men select women on looks. So it is all about mate selection. Men determine what things women will try to excel in, and women determine what things men try to excel in. With birds, the male shows his fitness as a father either through a big flashy tail, by building a bower, or doing a fancy dance or singing a song. The female of each different species determine what the males do to prove their fitness. Bower birds like the male to show off by building a bower, that has no purpose other than to show off to females. Peahens think big colorful tails are sexy and would not be a bit impressed with a bower. So, human females compete with other females for the attention of men by doing what the men find sexy. Human males buy flashy cars because human women think if he has enough money for that car, he has enough to feed children. But that isn't the only thing women find sexy, so human males also show off muscle, compete in sports to show strength so the woman will think he will father strong children. Men have to show they have good genes (strong, handsome) and that they can provide for children. Women provide for children by nursing babies, so human males like boobs. They safely birth babies by having wide hips, so human males like wide hips. But most of a woman's fitness to be a good mother are assessed by how she looks, narrow waist, big boobs, big hips, pretty face. With men it is more complicated. To be a good father, he has to be loyal to her, and not just run off when she gets pregnant. He has to be able to provide. He has to be able to protect her and children because human pregnant women are MUCH more vulnerable than any other animal when pregnant and human babies are born very very helpless and stay dependent for a long time. He also has to provide the good genes, of good looking ( semitrical face, strength, height) so, women look for a combination of traits, while men look for looks, because her fitness as a mother shows up in her looks.

Short answer, human women wear skimpy clothing because human males think it is sexy.

[Red Ryder]

I'm offended alas!

I look for Faith, Divine Nature, Individual Worth, Knowledge, Choice and Accountability, Good, Works, Integrity, and Virtue!

As well as a women that:

1. Has faith in and testimony of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
2. Understands her identity as a daughter of God.
3. Is worthy by obeying the commandments and living gospel standards.
4. Receives, recognizes, and relies on the promptings of the Holy Ghost.
5. Prepares for her divine roles as a daughter, wife, mother, and leader.
6. Understands and keeps her baptismal covenants.
7. Wears garments and is never sexy because it gives boys and men like Korihor bad, naughty, and impure thoughts!

[alas]

I'm offended alas!

I look for Faith, Divine Nature, Individual Worth, Knowledge, Choice and Accountability, Good, Works, Integrity, and Virtue!

As well as a women that:

1. Has faith in and testimony of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
2. Understands her identity as a daughter of God.
3. Is worthy by obeying the commandments and living gospel standards.
4. Receives, recognizes, and relies on the promptings of the Holy Ghost.
5. Prepares for her divine roles as a daughter, wife, mother, and leader.
6. Understands and keeps her baptismal covenants.
7. Wears garments and is never sexy because it gives boys and men like Korihor bad, naughty, and impure thoughts!

I know you are teasing, but there is truth to this. Men look for a woman who won't sleep with other men. Because if he is going to invest his time and money into raising children, he wants them to be HIS children. So, men invented all this "virtuous women" stuff to control women into only having sex with them.

[Emower]

From a wildlife biologist's pov, there are tons of reasons and instinct probably drives most of it, but much of it goes out the window with such a complex social structure like ours. Sex is a complicated beast. But I tend to think that it may have to do with the way women historically have been and are being repressed. Once you no longer feel controlled, it is fairly normal to go an opposite way.
There is also this interesting tug-of-war between being sexy but not selling the farm for women. Case in point:
I am an aspiring metalworker/blacksmith. I follow several blacksmithing groups on Facebook where people share photos of their work. Someone from Poland shared a piece he had done of a vulva. It was an incredible work of art, something that organic is extremely difficult to represent in metal let alone forge it by hand. It looked really good, but you can just imagine the uproar and cries of inappropriateness. It got me thinking, there are tons of examples of ancient, not so ancient, and contemporary art featuring male genetalia, but extremely few of women genetalia.
This gets back to my original point. Women and sex have been repressed for a long time. Mormon women are even more repressed sexually. It seems fairly natural to me that women might sow a few more oats once they are "freed."

[Palerider]

Hi Alas! Much of this I agree with. Some I have to take a little exception to.

It isn't just that men compete with men through sports, job, money, power, flashy car, and looks and women compete with other women with looks. It is that women select men on all those various traits while (shallow) men select women on looks. So it is all about mate selection. Men determine what things women will try to excel in, and women determine what things men try to excel in. With birds, the male shows his fitness as a father either through a big flashy tail, by building a bower, or doing a fancy dance or singing a song. The female of each different species determine what the males do to prove their fitness. Bower birds like the male to show off by building a bower, that has no purpose other than to show off to females. Peahens think big colorful tails are sexy and would not be a bit impressed with a bower. So, (shallow) human females compete with other females for the attention of men by doing what the(y) think men find sexy. Human males buy flashy cars because they feel the need for speed! human women think if he has enough money for that car, he has enough to feed children. But that isn't the only thing women find sexy, so human males also show off muscle, compete in sports to show strength so the woman will think he will father strong children. Men have to show they have good genes (strong, handsome) and that they can provide for children. Women provide for children by nursing babies, so human males like boobs. They safely birth babies by having wide hips, so human males like wide hips. But (for shallow men) most of a woman's fitness to be a good mother are assessed by how she looks, narrow waist, big boobs, big hips, pretty face. With men it is more complicated. To be a good father, he has to be loyal to her, and not just run off when she gets pregnant. He has to be able to provide. He has to be able to protect her and children because human pregnant women are MUCH more vulnerable than any other animal when pregnant and human babies are born very very helpless and stay dependent for a long time. He also has to provide the good genes, of good looking ( semitrical face, strength, height) so, women look for a combination of traits, while men look for looks, because her fitness as a mother shows up in her looks.

Short answer, (shallow) human women wear skimpy clothing because they think human males think it is sexy.

Speaking for the men here (but not all men) :

I exercise because I like how my body feels when I do. It's always been that way. That a well exercised body happens to be appealing to women has always been an incidental plus for me. Women or no women I would still stay in good condition. Also women or no women I would still enjoy having a fast car. It's just a fondness for power thing. I like powerful horses. I like powerful firearms. I like powerful machinery. I like powerful dogs. I would have this stuff whether there were women around or I was the last guy on earth. As a matter of fact, it's probably "a guy thing". Just built into our nature.

Regarding mate selection I think you are correct in many regards, but I and others I have known gave up some of the "sexier" and good looking women around to choose wives that were intelligent, disciplined, wise, frugal and God fearing and still capable of bearing children.

Those men who pick mates mostly on physical attractiveness often get what they deserve.

[document]

I wrote up a response to this, but it got to lengthy.

Here's what I've noticed from my now-mature post-divorce dating experience with women. I spent a while dating my age (30s) and couldn't make it anywhere, these were women who had a few children, established careers, etc. I switched to dating women ten years my younger and I had no issue getting dates with beautiful women who I would have thought "way out of my league".

Men look for youth and beauty, the other good traits are "icing on the cake"
Women look for stability, the other good traits are "icing on the cake"

For a woman to "hook" a man, she has to play that game. That means that women show a little cleavage, a little leg, form fitting clothes, and so forth when they are looking for a mate. They also have to have enough "good traits" to not negate their positive physical aspects.

But men have to play the exact same game, they have to understand the game and have to play it. When I first started dating in my 30s after my divorce, I went back to my original dating game which was youthful activities and being a fun person. Then I realized that few woman want a man in their 30s who is youthful. So, I started dressing conservatively and put forth my stability. Your looks at that point are icing, and your looks have to be enough to not negate your positive stable aspects.

[deacon blues]

Ah, the dating game. I remember dating after my divorce. The younger women I dated did all the talking, the older women listened more. Needless to say, I found being with the older women more enjoyable. I got lucky and married an older woman who in all respects is my superior. And she still has great legs.

[LaMachina]

It's interesting how in conservative cultures like Mormonism the envelope still gets pushed where it feels socially acceptable. I know plenty of Mormon women who will wear only garment appropriate attire but it's plenty tight enough to still show off that womanly form. Of course it became so popular that leaders felt the need to address that as well. And there is the push to proclaim the culturally acceptable dress standards as "hot". As a man I find the "modest is hottest" and "you're beautiful cuz you don't know you're beautiful" tropes nauseating. I wonder if there is that trend in Muslim communities or if it is more limited to Western religions?

So, men invented all this "virtuous women" stuff to control women into only having sex with them.

I agree although anecdotally I've found women (and not just mormon women) are far harsher on promiscuous women than men tend to be? Have they simply co-opted this view from millenia of patriarchal cultural influence or are there evolutionary roots to how women view it as well? I imagine it's a complicated inter-mixing of the two but haven't found any good studies on it.

[alas]

So, men invented all this "virtuous women" stuff to control women into only having sex with them.

I agree although anecdotally I've found women (and not just mormon women) are far harsher on promiscuous women than men tend to be? Have they simply co-opted this view from millenia of patriarchal cultural influence or are there evolutionary roots to how women view it as well? I imagine it's a complicated inter-mixing of the two but haven't found any good studies on it.

I have wondered the same thing.

So, here are my thoughts, which may be off.

Men and women both benefit from an ordered society. Gossip and shunning both work to inforcement these community standards. So, when women slut shame another woman they are reinforcing the community rules. Partly, there is the "if I cant do it, then you can't either." But also, women want to know for sure that the children of the woman mated to her son, are actually her grandchildren. Because she doesn't want to waste time and resources on somebody else's genes. So, women also have a vested interested in keeping women faithful to one man.

If a man slut shames a woman, he won't be sleeping with that woman, so maybe that is why it seems to be old men who slut shame and not young ones.

Now back before we all figured out the male role in fathering children, the anthropologists think women were free to sleep with whoever they wanted with no slut shaming. The theory is that these societies were matrilineal with a woman's brother helping to raise her children, because he knew they were related. While he had no such knowledge of the children of women he slept with. Such societies were much more free with sex because it didn't matter who the father was. The uncles and grandmother would help to raise children of their known kin, the daughter/sister.

And Palerider, those generalizations were generalizations. But most men have an attractiveness level below which they will not go. There just isn't any attraction. But once a woman meets his attractiveness threshold, then he looks for other traits, such as intelligence. Because that is a factor in a good mother. Marry someone too stupid and she would not have the sense to protect the child from dangers or teach it life skills. So, of course such things factor in.

And the sex selection markers are also status among peers, so even if no women are around, yeah, you want a flashy car. Because it has to do with self worth and status among peers as well as sex selection. And married women often....always maintain some degree of attractiveness and showing skin for self worth and status in the group. These sexual attraction things have multiple purposes in a group.

[document]

Total side note:

Ha! I just read over my post and I read this.

I switched to dating women ten years my younger and I had no issue getting dates with beautiful women who I would have thought "way out of my league".

I felt I was bragging. That wasn't the case. It's actually the reason I don't date anymore. Women in their mid-twenties are generally looking to settle down and many are wanting to start families. That left me in an awkward position as I have four children and it becomes a relationship killed at the start when you say, "I want no more children of my own. Period".

So, I couldn't date women in their 30s because they were generally dating older men (late 30s and early 40s) and I couldn't date women in their 20s because I was looking for a long term relationship of a different caliber. So...I'll just enjoy myself instead in single life.

[document]

I agree although anecdotally I've found women (and not just mormon women) are far harsher on promiscuous women than men tend to be? Have they simply co-opted this view from millenia of patriarchal cultural influence or are there evolutionary roots to how women view it as well? I imagine it's a complicated inter-mixing of the two but haven't found any good studies on it.

I read a book a while back (I can't recall the title now) which was about the commodification of sexuality and relationships. Primitive man, in essence, trades his good traits (ability to hunt, provide, protect, etc.) for sex and children from a dedicated partner. The power of sexuality is valued highly if all the women are essentially chaste, no man can get sex unless he commits to a relationship. From the females perspective, promiscuity without commitment and prostitution introduce another factor onto the market, meaning that the value of sex is lowered. If you can sleep with woman A over here with no commitment, why would you settle down with woman B over here? It lowers the value of sex, and men have greater bargaining value when approaching a woman. So, women would then turn on those who are devaluing their bargaining chip through slut shaming, etc. If they can get them to stop having sex without commitment, then their own bargaining chip gains value.

This book was essentially arguing (among other things) that women gain more from slut shaming.

I don't know how much I personally buy that, I think that the delicate game of mate-selection is fascinating and the model above is far too simple. Nonetheless, it did give me pause. Gender theory and the commodification of sexuality and relationships is fascinating.

[LaMachina]

Interesting! Perhaps there is some economic wisdom within the now generally frowned upon phrase 'No one will buy the cow if they are getting the milk for free!!"

Beyonce, it seems, is also a true messenger:

Now back before we all figured out the male role in fathering children, the anthropologists think women were free to sleep with whoever they wanted with no slut shaming. The theory is that these societies were matrilineal with a woman's brother helping to raise her children, because he knew they were related. While he had no such knowledge of the children of women he slept with. Such societies were much more free with sex because it didn't matter who the father was. The uncles and grandmother would help to raise children of their known kin, the daughter/sister.

Also interesting! I was born 10,000 years too late...except for, you know, sabre-tooth cats and stuff.

[Palerider]

And Palerider, those generalizations were generalizations. But most men have an attractiveness level below which they will not go. There just isn't any attraction. But once a woman meets his attractiveness threshold, then he looks for other traits, such as intelligence. Because that is a factor in a good mother. Marry someone too stupid and she would not have the sense to protect the child from dangers or teach it life skills. So, of course such things factor in.

And the sex selection markers are also status among peers, so even if no women are around, yeah, you want a flashy car. Because it has to do with self worth and status among peers as well as sex selection. And married women often....always maintain some degree of attractiveness and showing skin for self worth and status in the group. These sexual attraction things have multiple purposes in a group.

But all we hear these days is how women want to be appreciated for what they can do, for their capacities as an individual, not as a sex object. So then why advertise themselves in the way they dress as if that's what they are.....a sex object...?

Personally I dated a number of women who I wouldn't have considered "reaching my attractiveness threshold" that if I had been at an age and level of maturity to be married, I wouldn't have hesitated to marry them. And I was surprised by how the more I related with them, the more attractive they became.
I also had the unpleasant experience of pursuing females that I thought were quite attractive only to find they turned ugly in short order. So I learned from these experiences and I think in the end I chose very wisely. Some men and some women are slow learners. They keep trying the same stuff over and over that doesn't work and expecting a different result.

I think both men and women try to oversimplify the dynamics of human sexuality and end up drawing broad conclusions that actually aren't supportable. I agree that men AND women both have a threshold of attractiveness that has to be met before sexual appeal is reached but dressing skimpier than the girl next to her in order to overcome that deficit only makes a less attractive woman seem desperate and vulnerable to the men who are around her. She literally becomes a magnet for unscrupulous men.

I still think you're confusing some men with all men. To put a finer point on it, I would enjoy having a powerful car, airplane, horse, computer, whatever even if there were no MEN or women around to impress. Peer adulation isn't the primary driving force behind the quest for power. It is only an incidental by-product....which some men ...(shallow men) crave.

[mooseman]

But most men have an attractiveness level below which they will not go. There just isn't any attraction. But once a woman meets his attractiveness threshold, then he looks for other traits, such as intelligence. Because that is a factor in a good mother. Marry someone too stupid and she would not have the sense to protect the child from dangers or teach it life skills. So, of course such things factor in.

And the sex selection markers are also status among peers, so even if no women are around, yeah, you want a flashy car. Because it has to do with self worth and status among peers as well as sex selection. And married women often....always maintain some degree of attractiveness and showing skin for self worth and status in the group. These sexual attraction things have multiple purposes in a group.

Few comments: first, it's interesting that its been mostly (all?) Men posting about why women show more skin. I'd love to hear from the ladies of NOM on this.

Second, I think those "secondary features" are a part of why lds culture pressures members to marry young and pop the kids out in rapid succession. When your being told those hormones are God telling you to get married, you dont get much of a chance to find common ground outside of culture and desire to get down. This of course causes problem as you both realize is a bad match, but they trust leaders, "endure to the end" in shitty marriages because they have kids and it's expected and they live their kids.

Third--am i really the only one here whos wife has no desire to "maintain a degree of attractfulness"? Thats not me being mean--its her own words. I was told, straight up, she "didnt need to try" anymore because we were married and that was the goal. Even after her affair, she inisist that any effort to appear attractive improve is "pointless" and i should find her attractive with no effort on her part cause, you know, marriage...sorry threadjacking.

But really, is she the only wife who feels like this?

[document]

Alas is a woman.

In regards to your third point, I've seen more men do this than women. I have met one woman who felt this way and was vocal about it, but she was the anomaly.

[LaMachina]

But all we hear these days is how women want to be appreciated for what they can do, for their capacities as an individual, not as a sex object. So then why advertise themselves in the way they dress as if that's what they are.....a sex object...?

This seems an oversimplification. It appears so much of this stuff runs just under our consciousness so it's hard to say we make conscious efforts to advertise ourselves in certain ways. Indubitably there are extremes that are culturally defined and people do make decisions in how they present themselves (to their own detriment sometimes!!) but there are tons of people who want to be appreciated for their capabilities but also want to look good while doing it. And what is looking good if not exuding some sex appeal? Are they now sex objects because they have such an appeal? This seems to be defined more by the observer than the one we are observing, doesn't it?

People do make generalizations when talking about this stuff because it's an unfortunate necessity. Obviously they don't apply to every individual case but I do wonder if they apply more to your case than you think?
Our brains have been shown to be pretty tricky when it comes to matching our actions with our motivations! But other than that I have no reason to doubt your life experience!

I'm curious though if your experience is similar to mine? I find my wife very attractive and I believe she has many qualities that are considered traditionally attractive. But we haven't stayed married for almost 20 years cuz I think she's hot. She's intelligent, caring, fun, non-pretentious and a hell of a cook. All that said, I'm still not a fan of her "comfy" sweatpants and there are certain items in her wardrobe guaranteed to turn my crank because they accentuate certain womanly features. You're obviously a man with a good head on your shoulders who realizes what's important in life but can your wife affect you in that same way? It is certainly possible she doesn't as that is the case in many individual cases for a variety of reasons however *generally* woman will have that effect on their man. Meanwhile, despite a probably unhealthy opinion of how attractive I am , the sexiest thing I can do for my wife is make dinner and do the dishes...go figure.

[Palerider]

You and I are undoubtedly from different generations. I'm heading into my mid-sixties and have been very happily married for 41 years. Some here who remember me from the former board know that I'm fairly conservative but I have empathy for those who may not be believers. I don't blame them for the way they feel and their attitudes towards God and conservatism.

So I watch Fox News frequently (among others). And I notice their penchant for mostly blonde but almost always attractive female correspondents/commentators and that many of them dress on the edge of impropriety to my way of thinking. I think Fox encourages this "look" because it gives their viewers eye candy while they get fed the "news". I think about how when I was growing up and their were only three networks, the reporters/commentators were mostly men. I'm really glad that has changed. I think women show that they have a great perspective to bring to the table and just as good of a grasp of the issues as do men. But back in those days (the 60's/70's) a woman would have been considered very risqué or even slutty if she had appeared as a professional journalist on national television the way many do today.

My wife is a vey handsome woman. Very professional. We have a healthy, loving relationship in all ways. We know we don't agree perfectly on all issues and about the solution to some of those issues that plague society and acknowledge each other's view as legitimate. Great and honest people actually can disagree in some areas and still get along fine.

I have heard her voice many times the lack of real "class" among todays men and women in their appearance. And the lamentable part is that it is so unnecessary. So whether a woman is on TV or in a bar her manner of dress does say something about her mental attitude towards herself and how she wants to be perceived. It is just my opinion that women actually mistake the solution for what they want to achieve by dressing how they "think" will draw notice away from other women and focus it upon themselves. And it is that incorrect assumption that draws the attention of the wrong kind of men and then women can't figure out "why"? It's like trying to correct poor eyesight by taking an aspirin.
Any man with a good eye can tell what's going on with a woman's figure without seeing the naked package. I guess I'm just close enough to my grandfather's generation that I remember him saying that he could really appreciate a "well turned ankle" on a woman.

By professing that they "just want to look good and sexy" and that it has nothing to do with attracting attention, we then raise the debate about what is "good" which for all intents and purposes becomes a trip down the rabbit hole in this type of venue. I believe we already had something similar to that debate on another thread. All I can say is good luck with where this seems to be going, but then I have a tendency to be a little pessimistic at times.....